klaus (klaus++at++xmission.com)
Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:52:02 -0700 (MST)
>> As far as I know, but I am not a specialist on that, Windows 9x/NT does
>> not provide any equivalent of locking a CPU or having non degradable
>> realtime process priorities that prevent the system to take time over the
>> application.
> That is also true.
Not really.
Under NT4.0:
SetProcessAffintyMask() - locks the threads of a process to a
processor or set of processors.
SetPriorityClass() - sets the priority class of the process. If set to
REALTIME_PRIORITY_CLASS, the priorities are nondegrading. You still
have to worry about drivers in ring 0, but I would hope SGI would
ensure that drivers running in ring 0 would not take over the CPU for
nondeterministic times (for their hardware anyway). This is really the
only stumbling block to determinism (given that you take care to lock
required pages into physical memory).
As was mentioned, there are 3rd party toolkits which can give
determinism by running things at ring 0 or another which runs NT under
VxWorks(tm), VxWorks(tm) giving the determinism, NT giving the GUI,
etc.
-klaus
=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://www.sgi.com/Technology/Performer/
Submissions: info-performer++at++sgi.com
Admin. requests: info-performer-request++at++sgi.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 17:56:27 PDT